An alternative East-West route and end station

[70014IronDuke]

There are many in here who say the economic case for Bedford - [St Neots] - Cambridge will never stack up, and so will never get built. (Just for the record, I do hope it gets built. But I'd give that only a 20% chance.)

Some (including myself) have suggested putting in a south-east chord at Manton, and running Bedford - Corby - Stamford. Vastly cheaper, but this won't work because its far too much of a diversion. (For the record, I agree - if we keep the goal as Cambridge.)

But if, or when, Bedford - St Neots - Cambridge is abandoned, the issue of going further east with a modern railway won't go away. So how about another compromise?

Build a new route Northampton - Wellinborough, and a new chord at Manton. Quietly abandon Cambridge as the end station for Peterborough.

Advantages: Only 12 or so new miles of track between Northampton and Wellingboro', plus the new Manton chord. Still vastly cheaper than the 30 or so miles of new track from Bedford to Cambridge. (Wellingboro might be expensive though. The old trackbed south of the station has a housing estate on it, last time I looked.)

However, instead of your east-west trains serving Bedford, St Neots and Cambourne en route, they serve Milton Keynes, Northampton, Wellingboro, Kettering and Corby - a massively larger population set.

And you could probably single chunks of Bletchley - Bedford, giving some savings long term.

The big disadvantage is you still do not effectively serve Cambridge from the west. (Yes, you could of course do the journey, but this way is still a sizeable diversion compared to Bedford - Cambridge directly. But it still gives you huge capex savings against the direct option.)

 

[Intercity110]

Build a new route Northampton - Wellinborough, and a new chord at Manton. Quietly abandon Cambridge as the end station for Peterborough.

the problem with this is that you'll have to demolish lots of homes, and if you want to run it into northampton station ( not have a northampton east where it terminates) the town centre would have to be completely rebuilt. Could you provide some more detailed plans on how it'll terminate, please?

 

[bspahh]

Shouldn't an "East West" route go from East to West, rather than spending 19 miles going North West to South East (Northampton to Bletchley)?

This seems to be "East Midlands West"

 

[A0wen]

Build a new route Northampton - Wellinborough, and a new chord at Manton. Quietly abandon Cambridge as the end station for Peterborough.

Bit in bold - go on, humour me. How do you suggest you build such a route ? What route do you suggest?

Disclosure - I'm sitting at home about a mile away from where the old formation was and I know the area *very* well - so if I say your suggested route "won't work", then I'm doing it from a position of some knowledge.

 

[The Planner]

Shouldn't an "East West" route go from East to West, rather than spending 19 miles going North West to South East (Northampton to Bletchley)?

This seems to be "East Midlands West"

Then neither the ECML or WCML should have the names they do. Its a just a title.

 

[bspahh]

Then neither the ECML or WCML should have the names they do. Its a just a title.

They don't hug the coast, but they are main lines and they both go near the respective coasts.

This route is meanders around the midlands, connecting towns which don't seem to have much direct traffic. Northampton and Wellingborough would need significant amounts of demolition. Stamford has a station but its poorly connected to local transport.

 

[Nottingham59]

I do think that a Oxford-Bedford-Peterborough service might justify an hourly or two-hourly 158. It would be useful for connections and leisure traffic in the way that Nottingham-Norwich is useful to some.

 

[William3000]

There are many in here who say the economic case for Bedford - [St Neots] - Cambridge will never stack up, and so will never get built. (Just for the record, I do hope it gets built. But I'd give that only a 20% chance.)

Some (including myself) have suggested putting in a south-east chord at Manton, and running Bedford - Corby - Stamford. Vastly cheaper, but this won't work because its far too much of a diversion. (For the record, I agree - if we keep the goal as Cambridge.)

But if, or when, Bedford - St Neots - Cambridge is abandoned, the issue of going further east with a modern railway won't go away. So how about another compromise?

Build a new route Northampton - Wellinborough, and a new chord at Manton. Quietly abandon Cambridge as the end station for Peterborough.

Advantages: Only 12 or so new miles of track between Northampton and Wellingboro', plus the new Manton chord. Still vastly cheaper than the 30 or so miles of new track from Bedford to Cambridge. (Wellingboro might be expensive though. The old trackbed south of the station has a housing estate on it, last time I looked.)

However, instead of your east-west trains serving Bedford, St Neots and Cambourne en route, they serve Milton Keynes, Northampton, Wellingboro, Kettering and Corby - a massively larger population set.

And you could probably single chunks of Bletchley - Bedford, giving some savings long term.

The big disadvantage is you still do not effectively serve Cambridge from the west. (Yes, you could of course do the journey, but this way is still a sizeable diversion compared to Bedford - Cambridge directly. But it still gives you huge capex savings against the direct option.)

While potentially cheaper, Cambridge is the vast draw in this area. Typically it has 3 times the passenger numbers of Peterborough (and that’s in spite of Peterborough being on the ECML). Cambridge is growing at a huge rate - 66,000 jobs and 55,000 homes are planned for the next 18 years in Greater Cambridge, and its station is busier than Newcastle, Sheffield, Bristol Temple Meads, and many other big cities.

 

[zwk500]

Build a new route Northampton - Wellinborough, and a new chord at Manton. Quietly abandon Cambridge as the end station for Peterborough.

However, instead of your east-west trains serving Bedford, St Neots and Cambourne en route, they serve Milton Keynes, Northampton, Wellingboro, Kettering and Corby - a massively larger population set.

The issue with this is that you haven't identified the flows you are serving. Not every city is as simple as population = journeys = revenue. MK and (less so) Northampton may be destinations for some people, but is anybody travelling to Wellingborough, Kettering or Corby who doesn't live there (or is visiting a resident?). In Contrast, Oxford, MK, Bedford and Cambridge are all journey destinations as well as origin points. In between are Winslow, the Marston Vale villages, St Neots, and Cambourne. This is by far the heavier demand route.

If you are keeping Bedford-Bletchley, a 2nd route between the WCML and MML makes no sense.

And you could probably single chunks of Bletchley - Bedford, giving some savings long term

Singling is generally a false economy.

 

[70014IronDuke]

the problem with this is that you'll have to demolish lots of homes, and if you want to run it into northampton station ( not have a northampton east where it terminates) the town centre would have to be completely rebuilt. Could you provide some more detailed plans on how it'll terminate, please?

Ah - you may have identified a serious flaw in the plan there . I no longer have any detailed knowledge of Northampton and hadn't thought about that (although there was a single line still extant on the old trackbed of the Bedford line in the 90s. All gone now, I assume.)

That would leave the only possibility of leaving Northampton going north, and then peeling away east. I suspect that, away from the Nene, it gets rather hilly. And that route would miss out Wellingboro.

Shouldn't an "East West" route go from East to West, rather than spending 19 miles going North West to South East (Northampton to Bletchley)?

This seems to be "East Midlands West"

Irrelevant. That's just branding blah blah.
As I outlined, this scenario assumes Bedford to Cambridge will not be built on cost grounds, and is a cheaper extension. It's a case of you are going to get Cambridge, so what might be possible?

While potentially cheaper, Cambridge is the vast draw in this area. Typically it has 3 times the passenger numbers of Peterborough (and that’s in spite of Peterborough being on the ECML). Cambridge is growing at a huge rate - 66,000 jobs and 55,000 homes are planned for the next 18 years in Greater Cambridge, and its station is busier than Newcastle, Sheffield, Bristol Temple Meads, and many other big cities.

Yes, I'm sure you are correct. (And by citing those cities, it is impressive.) Don't get me wrong, I hope E-W goes ahead.

The issue with this is that you haven't identified the flows you are serving. Not every city is as simple as population = journeys = revenue.

Agreed.

MK and (less so) Northampton may be destinations for some people, but is anybody travelling to Wellingborough, Kettering or Corby who doesn't live there (or is visiting a resident?). In Contrast, Oxford, MK, Bedford and Cambridge are all journey destinations as well as origin points. In between are Winslow, the Marston Vale villages, St Neots, and Cambourne. This is by far the heavier demand route.

Hey, you are mixing and muddling here. Oxford and MK are still in the scenario I posited, so don't make it seem I'm leaving them out. So too is Winslow, and indeed the Marston Vale villages, unless you close it.

Cambridge is missed out, yes. (That's the unfortunate reality in this scenario.)

But come on, don't tell me Bedford, St Neots and Cambourne are going to be more important traffic centres than the new ones added on this alternative suggestion - Northampton, Wellingboro, Kettering and Corby. (Though we may have to drop Wellingboro.

Nobody talks about St Neots or Cambourne other than commuting site for Cambridge, and maybe a few into Bedford in any case. (Yes, I'm sure there some Cambourne to MK passengers, some St Neots to Oxford, etc, but we all know these will be miniscule numbers in the grand scheme of things, unfortunately.)

If you are keeping Bedford-Bletchley, a 2nd route between the WCML and MML makes no sense.

So close it then. But I don't see why, it's hardly a 'strategic' route is it? It's survived as a local route (in passnger terms) since 1967. Let it continue as such, although personally, I don't agree with that policy. It should be revamped with trains to Oxford and Aylesbury, even if it is not continued eastwards. (Or will you then argue that Bedford is not such an important traffic generator after all?)

But for sure, I'd argue Northampton - Kettering - Corby would be a far more useful route linking the WCML to the MML than Bletchley - Bedford. It might take some time for traffic to build up, of course, as it would a brand new link.

Singling is generally a false economy.

Is it? Long-term? Perhaps it depends on what you mean by 'generally'. Sure, if you mean singling routes in the 60s-70s which later saw massive growth such as Oxford - Worcester and High Wycombe - Banbury, I expect that could be argued. Possibly even the Highland main line, possibly the Glasgow & South Western.

But, eg Salisbury - Exeter, Preston - Ormskirk? Exeter - Barnstable? (sorry, I'm not sure how double/single the latter line was back in the 60s). Yes, eg the first mentioned caused operating headaches, but rather than falise economy, I'm pretty sure singling saved massive costs on such routes which would otherwise have been closed in the lean years from the 60s up to 2000 or so.

 

[cle]

But come on, don't tell me Bedford, St Neots and Cambourne are going to be more important traffic centres than the new ones added on this alternative suggestion - Northampton, Wellingboro, Kettering and Corby. (Though we may have to drop Wellingboro.

None of them are that important in the grand scheme of things.

It's about the folks who live scattered across all of those places, which have had tons of population/housing growth but not much jobs growth - and giving them access to the (economic/cultural/educational/commercial) activity in Cambridge (best job market outside of London in some regards) - plus Oxford and Milton Keynes.

And then other connectivity options to London and across some other radial lines. The local pairings are incidental, but maybe for local journeys (schools, shopping, local authority jobs), but are a nice to have.

Bedford is just an intersection. No offense to anyone there. Whereas remove Oxford or Cambridge, and this falls apart. MK too - but Bletchley will have to cover eastwards, so it's not as tidy. But unlikely to ever be served by Cambridge (easily).

 

[zwk500]

But come on, don't tell me Bedford, St Neots and Cambourne are going to be more important traffic centres than the new ones added on this alternative suggestion - Northampton, Wellingboro, Kettering and Corby. (Though we may have to drop Wellingboro.

Nobody talks about St Neots or Cambourne other than commuting site for Cambridge, and maybe a few into Bedford in any case. (Yes, I'm sure there some Cambourne to MK passengers, some St Neots to Oxford, etc, but we all know these will be miniscule numbers in the grand scheme of things, unfortunately.)

But the important distinction here is that EWR alternates quite well with traffic sources and traffic sinks. Northampton may well be a destination, but Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby are only Traffic sources and how many of them are looking to travel to Northampton or MK rather than London, Luton or Leicester?

So close it then. But I don't see why, it's hardly a 'strategic' route is it? It's survived as a local route (in passnger terms) since 1967. Let it continue as such, although personally, I don't agree with that policy. It should be revamped with trains to Oxford and Aylesbury, even if it is not continued eastwards. (Or will you then argue that Bedford is not such an important traffic generator after all?)

Bedford is definitely a marginal traffic generator. With Wixams station the loss of the Marston vale would not be too hard a brake. But now you've changed from changing EWR to only building 2/3rds of EWR and then building a completely separate route.

But for sure, I'd argue Northampton - Kettering - Corby would be a far more useful route linking the WCML to the MML than Bletchley - Bedford. It might take some time for traffic to build up, of course, as it would a brand new link.

Well it wouldn't, because there's a bus that runs between Northampton and Corby that doesn't get much ridership but there's a bus between MKC and Bedford that very much does get busy ridership. The X5 was usually about half full when I boarded at MK and ran with a decent (2/3rds+) load to Bedford, where it went back down to 1/2 full.

Is it? Long-term? Perhaps it depends on what you mean by 'generally'. Sure, if you mean singling routes in the 60s-70s which later saw massive growth such as Oxford - Worcester and High Wycombe - Banbury, I expect that could be argued. Possibly even the Highland main line, possibly the Glasgow & South Western.

But, eg Salisbury - Exeter, Preston - Ormskirk? Exeter - Barnstable? (sorry, I'm not sure how double/single the latter line was back in the 60s). Yes, eg the first mentioned caused operating headaches, but rather than falise economy, I'm pretty sure singling saved massive costs on such routes which would otherwise have been closed in the lean years from the 60s up to 2000 or so.

Yes. savings with modern maintenance machinery for equivalent route KM of single track vs double track are minimal. You don't have any signal boxes to close, plain line is simple to maintain, and then you add more points and interlocking by needing loops etc. Salisbury-Exeter has cost millions to put back.
Preston-Ormskirk and Exeter-Barnstable are slightly different as the branches can run with very few track circuits and signals one the branch splits off, working OTS principles. That wouldn't be possible on the Marston Vale as you can't isolate the branch at either end for operational reasons with the depots and sidings.

 

[MarkyT]

Salisbury-Exeter has cost millions to put back.

WOULD cost!

Preston-Ormskirk and Exeter-Barnstable are slightly different as the branches can run with very few track circuits and signals one the branch splits off, working OTS principles. That wouldn't be possible on the Marston Vale as you can't isolate the branch at either end for operational reasons with the depots and sidings.

I'd argue TCB working with modern axle counters significantly reduces the equipment population between 'hubs' of complexity anyway, regardless of the number of tracks. That really strengthens your false economy of singling argument. Historically there was also the double-ended version of 'one train without train staff', namely 'tokenless block' one or even both ends of which can be remotely operated from a distant panel or ROC using tail light observation cameras if desired. I think many singling schemes arose from simple capital savings demanded at one particular renewal event during BRs most dire financial period rather than any sensible whole-life analysis.

 

[zwk500]

WOULD cost!

Well, the bit's they've already put back have cost millions, it would require millions more to finish off.

I'd argue TCB working with modern axle counters significantly reduces the equipment population between 'hubs' of complexity anyway, regardless of the number of tracks. That really strengthens your false economy of singling argument. Historically there was also the double-ended version of 'one train without train staff', namely 'tokenless block' one or even both ends of which can be remotely operated from a distant panel or ROC using tail light observation cameras if desired. I think many singling schemes arose from simple capital savings demanded at one particular renewal event during BRs most dire financial period rather than any sensible whole-life analysis.

AIUI many schemes were because the government were offering specific grants for specific savings.

 

[Intercity110]

Ah - you may have identified a serious flaw in the plan there . I no longer have any detailed knowledge of Northampton and hadn't thought about that (although there was a single line still extant on the old trackbed of the Bedford line in the 90s. All gone now, I assume.)

yes sadly. You could run it on the path of the Northampton- market Harborough line in Northampton & use the bays to terminate.

 

[Grecian 1998]

Re Salisbury - Exeter - the original singling was so poorly thought out that Sherborne - Yeovil Junction had to be reinstated later the same year (1967). Tisbury loop cost £500,000 to put in at 1986 prices and had to be put outside the station as the down platform was sold off, which isn't very helpful. The Axminster dynamic loop cost £2.6m at 2009 prices. There's still over 70 miles of single track.

Whilst I can see the logic of singling lines, Salisbury - Exeter was the first real attempt at singling a line of that length AIUI and has suffered ever since from being a pilot scheme with the attendant lack of forethought. It was and still is possible for trains to have to wait at Pinhoe, Chard Junction, Templecombe or Wilton South, all of which had closed in 1966, although Pinhoe and Templecombe have since reopened. In the latter case the double track ends before reaching the station.

NR's 2020 route study acknowledged it is impossible to run a reliable hourly service without further double tracking, as illustrated by the way delays spiral very quickly every time the slightest thing goes awry.

Exeter - Barnstaple was always single track between Copplestone and Umberleigh, albeit with loops, and the line from the point at which it crosses the Exe after Cowley Bridge Junction remained double track as far as Crediton until 1984.

OT I know, but if singling is considered, the lesson of Salisbury - Exeter is that it needs to be done thoughtfully. Later schemes seem fair less inclined to end double track sections in the middle of the countryside.

 

[A0wen]

Ah - you may have identified a serious flaw in the plan there . I no longer have any detailed knowledge of Northampton and hadn't thought about that (although there was a single line still extant on the old trackbed of the Bedford line in the 90s. All gone now, I assume.)

That would leave the only possibility of leaving Northampton going north, and then peeling away east. I suspect that, away from the Nene, it gets rather hilly. And that route would miss out Wellingboro.

I suggest you look at a map. The first challenge is the line leaving Northampton heads pretty much north-west, not north. It also runs on the west side of the town - the exact opposite of where you need to be heading.

For the sake of a couple of crayons on a map - the next challenges you'd face are:

- branching off anywhere between Church Brampton and East Haddon drops you straight into the flood plain.
- you're at the bottom of the valley - in less than a mile from the railway line heading north or north east the land climbs about 40m in height in just under a mile.
- you'd then have to find a clear path into Kettering on the south side otherwise you'd end up with a reversal.

yes sadly. You could run it on the path of the Northampton- market Harborough line in Northampton & use the bays to terminate.

You'll struggle a bit - whilst you could remove the Northampton & Lamport railway there's a lot of development around Boughton Crossing - and good luck with getting a level crossing reinstated there. That's not going to happen any time soon. And you couldn't put a bridge in - either for the railway or the roads.

Your next challenge would be where to deviate from the Northampton - Harborough line to head towards Kettering. Try and do it before Brixworth and you'll end up in Pitsford Water, do it after and you've got the same issue as the one above - namely the line runs along the bottom of the valley and the land climbs very steeply in the mile or so away from it - probably more so than the example above, though I'd need to check an OS map to be exact.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I suggest you look at a map. The first challenge is the line leaving Northampton heads pretty much north-west, not north. It also runs on the west side of the town - the exact opposite of where you need to be heading.

For the sake of a couple of crayons on a map - the next challenges you'd face are:

- branching off anywhere between Church Brampton and East Haddon drops you straight into the flood plain.
- you're at the bottom of the valley - in less than a mile from the railway line heading north or north east the land climbs about 40m in height in just under a mile.
- you'd then have to find a clear path into Kettering on the south side otherwise you'd end up with a reversal.




You'll struggle a bit - whilst you could remove the Northampton & Lamport railway there's a lot of development around Boughton Crossing - and good luck with getting a level crossing reinstated there. That's not going to happen any time soon. And you couldn't put a bridge in - either for the railway or the roads.

Your next challenge would be where to deviate from the Northampton - Harborough line to head towards Kettering. Try and do it before Brixworth and you'll end up in Pitsford Water, do it after and you've got the same issue as the one above - namely the line runs along the bottom of the valley and the land climbs very steeply in the mile or so away from it - probably more so than the example above, though I'd need to check an OS map to be exact.

My instinct without consulting Ordnance Survey is you'd need to stick to the Northampton - MH alignment as far as the North side of Kelmarsh tunnel,
(Adds budget for bridging the A14 and bringing Kelmarsh tunnels up to standard)

Then head East along the Ise valley South of Desborough and Rushton to join the MML between Glendon and Kettering North Junction
(Adds budget for a grade-separated junction to avoid congestion here)

Interested parties may wish to get themselves to Harborough tomorrow to discuss this at a public meeting for the restoration of the Northampton-Harborough Line that is described in the link below. It's not clear whether you have to bring your own crayons, or whether you can buy them on the door

Public Meeting Over Campaign To Re-Open Market Harborough-Northampton Rail Link

Campaigners calling for a rail link to be restored between Market Harborough and Northampton are holding a public meeting tomorrow. The idea of reinstating the tracks between the two towns was first muted four years ago, after the 14-mile route closed in 1981. Campaigners say any re-build coul

harboroughfm.co.uk

 

[A0wen]

Interested parties may wish to get themselves to Harborough tomorrow to discuss this at a public meeting for the restoration of the Northampton-Harborough Line that is described in the link below. It's not clear whether you have to bring your own crayons, or whether you can buy them on the door

Public Meeting Over Campaign To Re-Open Market Harborough-Northampton Rail Link

Campaigners calling for a rail link to be restored between Market Harborough and Northampton are holding a public meeting tomorrow. The idea of reinstating the tracks between the two towns was first muted four years ago, after the 14-mile route closed in 1981. Campaigners say any re-build coul

harboroughfm.co.uk

Bloody ERTA - a band of nutters. Would have been more appropriate if they'd scheduled their meeting for 1st April.

They're campaigning for, in no particular order:

- EWR to use the 'old' alignment out of Bedford and reopening the old St John's station
- Ampthill station (which Ampthill town council oppose)
- Bedford - Northampton
- Rugby - Lutterworth - Leicester (can't remember if it's via the GC the Midland Counties or both).
- reinstating the GCR from Calvert to Rugby including Woodford Halse to Banbury
- Banbury - Daventry - Northampton
- A link from Old Oak Common to Heathrow and onto Woking so you could run Chiltern services from Aylesbury / Wycombe to Woking and Guildford.
- March - Spalding
- St Albans Abbey to Hatfield

And in the next breath they claim they aren't trying to just rebuild old lines - allegedly their "GCR" scheme is entirely new, the fact it follows the line of the old GCR route is, of course, entirely coincidental.

As well as being supportive of other 'no hope' schemes such as Colne - Skipton and Matlock - Buxton.

Judging by comments on Social Media, even some of the Railfuture's campaigners have a low opinion of them, which say's something.

Tempting though a trip to Market Harborough is as it's not too far, I think I'll spend my day more productively with some nasal excavation and rectal scratching.

The worst of their Market Harborough campaign is they are ignoring the fact the Brampton Valley Way - which is what the trackbed has become - gets *far more* use by walkers, cyclists and horse-riders with families out there every weekend, than it ever saw as an active railway. And they reckon that re-opening the line wouldn't affect that as you could just provide a footpath alongside the railway. Yep, I can just see how appealing that would be to most of the Brampton Valley Way's users, shoved off to a footpath alongside a fenced mainline railway with trains passing at 60 mph, I'm sure that the users will really see the appeal of that.

 

[Grumpy]

The thread title is about an alternative East-West end station. However the subsequent discussion as all about the eastern end. Is not the western end equally relevant? If Oxford is so important/attractive then why doesn't it have any services to/from he west? When the line opens anyone wanting (say) a Milton Keynes to Swindon or west thereof journey will presumably be looking at changing at Oxford and Didcot. Rather than contemplate worthy but hugely expensive outlets to the east, wouldn't a sevice extension to the west offer a more promising return?

 

[zwk500]

The thread title is about an alternative East-West end station. However the subsequent discussion as all about the eastern end. Is not the western end equally relevant? If Oxford is so important/attractive then why doesn't it have any services to/from he west? When the line opens anyone wanting (say) a Milton Keynes to Swindon or west thereof journey will presumably be looking at changing at Oxford and Didcot. Rather than contemplate worthy but hugely expensive outlets to the east, wouldn't a sevice extension to the west offer a more promising return?

Swindon is not a significant destination. I believe people mused about extending to Didcot or Reading but it was decided that tying themselves into the 2-track section south of Oxford and lining up paths at Oxford North junction made the service too precarious when there was a relatively straightforward change onto GWR available. And it'll be simpler still when (if) OLE comes to Oxford. If you are travelling from MK to Bristol it will be quicker to go to Birmingham or London and change there.

 

[A0wen]

If you are travelling from MK to Bristol it will be quicker to go to Birmingham or London and change there.

Whilst you are, of course, correct, don't expect that to placate some posters around here.

Don't forget one poster of this parish was recently bemoaning that a trip from Cricklewood to Sheffield heading north meant multiple changes and connection times. The fact the easiest journey was via St Pancras was "wrong" because it meant heading south to go north.......

 

[Grumpy]

Swindon is not a significant destination. I believe people mused about extending to Didcot or Reading but it was decided that tying themselves into the 2-track section south of Oxford and lining up paths at Oxford North junction made the service too precarious when there was a relatively straightforward change onto GWR available. And it'll be simpler still when (if) OLE comes to Oxford. If you are travelling from MK to Bristol it will be quicker to go to Birmingham or London and change there.

Swindon and the points beyond eg Bath Bristol certainly are significant.
With regard to Oxford North junction a look at Realtime Trains for a 2 hour period yesterday (0800-0959) shows just 8 southbound trains plus 5 ex Marylebone. If that cant be managed they might as well give up.
When East-West was announced the talk was of 45 minutes from Milton Keynes to Oxford. That suggests 2 hours MK-Bristol should be possible. Rail Planner currently shows a range of journey times from Milton Keynes to Bristol with 1,2 or 3 changes. The average journey time is approx 3 hours

 

[zwk500]

Whilst you are, of course, correct, don't expect that to placate some posters around here.

Don't forget one poster of this parish was recently bemoaning that a trip from Cricklewood to Sheffield heading north meant multiple changes and connection times. The fact the easiest journey was via St Pancras was "wrong" because it meant heading south to go north.......

That particular poster is an outlier though.

Swindon and the points beyond eg Bath Bristol certainly are significant.

Bristol yes but Swindon no and Bath doubtful from MK. The only people doing MK-Swindon are either residents of swindon or NR staff heading between the offices.

With regard to Oxford North junction a look at Realtime Trains for a 2 hour period yesterday (0800-0959) shows just 8 southbound trains plus 5 ex Marylebone. If that cant be managed they might as well give up.

It's not about how many but when you present across both up tracks.

When East-West was announced the talk was of 45 minutes from Milton Keynes to Oxford. That suggests 2 hours MK-Bristol should be possible. Rail Planner currently shows a range of journey times from Milton Keynes to Bristol with 1,2 or 3 changes. The average journey time is approx 3 hours

But there just aren't significant flows from Bucks to Bristol. Look at traffic on the motorways, there's no endless congestion on the cross country routes, between the M4 and the M1. It just doesn't justify the problems it'd cause to London-Bristol of Southampton-Birmingham passengers trying to run a direct train.

 

[A0wen]

That particular poster is an outlier though.

You used more letters than I would have......

But there just aren't significant flows from Bucks to Bristol. Look at traffic on the motorways, there's no endless congestion on the cross country routes, between the M4 and the M1. It just doesn't justify the problems it'd cause to London-Bristol of Southampton-Birmingham passengers trying to run a direct train.

Correct. Whilst the links from MK to the M40 are poor (neither the A421 or A422 are particularly good roads), the A404 from Wycombe to the M4 and A34 from Bicester to Newbury and A420 from Oxford - Swindon are generally free flowing apart from the A34 around Oxford, but that's because Oxford is a PITA to get around generally, exacerbated by the policies expounded by their local protections.

 

[zwk500]

You used more letters than I would have......

Maintaining decorum in public...

Correct. Whilst the links from MK to the M40 are poor (neither the A421 or A422 are particularly good roads), the A404 from Wycombe to the M4 and A34 from Bicester to Newbury and A420 from Oxford - Swindon are generally free flowing apart from the A34 around Oxford, but that's because Oxford is a PITA to get around generally, exacerbated by the policies expounded by their local protections.

The links from MK to M40 are lower standard but not unfairly. In 5 years living around MK I didn't drive to the M40 more than half a dozen times, and most of those were for local rugby matches in Oxfordshire for which no train would be suitable.

 

[cle]

I'm not sure if there is inherent demand from Bucks to the West, perhaps not - but when such journeys are not historically in the 'zeitgeist' of someone's direct rail links, they probably are not on their radar. These openings / reopenings do stimulate demand for previously un-imagined or negligible flows and journeys.

I agree that getting to Didcot would be better for connections west (a direct Bristol service with a 100mph diesel wouldn't be ideal) - and Reading of course being even better. But supposedly it would need to be the stopping path south of Oxford, which would be silly and not instigate that sort of new regional express pairings. Reading is a far more important (rail) destination and junction than Bristol too - and at least south of Didcot has quad track.

 

[daodao]

The thread title is about an alternative East-West end station. However the subsequent discussion as all about the eastern end. Is not the western end equally relevant? If Oxford is so important/attractive then why doesn't it have any services to/from he west? When the line opens anyone wanting (say) a Milton Keynes to Swindon or west thereof journey will presumably be looking at changing at Oxford and Didcot. Rather than contemplate worthy but hugely expensive outlets to the east, wouldn't a service extension to the west offer a more promising return?

Exactly. The new E-W services from Bedford/MK should be linked to the existing Oxford-Didcot shuttle trains to enhance connectivity, and this is one of the reasons why I feel that Oxford-Didcot electrification should be put on the back burner.

Cambridge is a relatively small city, and most traffic is to/from London. Journeys to Northern England, the Midlands and beyond can be made more quickly via Peterborough, and to Southern England/South Wales via London. The Bedford-Cambridge section of the former Bletchley-Cambridge line only had about 6 trains per weekday. The proposal to re-open this rural backwater route is in part related to the concept of "restoring the Varsity line", and is not grounded in economic reality.

 

[William3000]

Exactly. The new E-W services from Bedford/MK should be linked to the existing Oxford-Didcot shuttle trains to enhance connectivity, and this is one of the reasons why I feel that Oxford-Didcot electrification should be put on the back burner.

Cambridge is a relatively small city, and most traffic is to/from London. Journeys to Northern England, the Midlands and beyond can be made more quickly via Peterborough, and to Southern England/South Wales via London. The Sandy-Cambridge section of the former Bletchley-Cambridge line only had about 6 trains per weekday. The proposal to re-open this rural backwater route is in part related to the concept of "restoring the Varsity line", and is not grounded in economic reality.

Cambridge May be a relatively small city but it’s an economic powerhouse and one of the fastest growing in the UK. Most traffic isn’t too and from London - it’s actually inward commuting from surrounding areas to Cambridge - places like Ely, Royston, Newmarket, Audley End etc. Cambridge station is consistently busier than Newcastle, Bristol Temple Meads, York, Sheffield etc, and about 3 times as busy as places like Peterborough.

East West Rail would be beneficial for Cambridge and all points east to reach places like St Neots, Bedford, Bicester, Coventry, Luton Airport, Luton, Milton Keynes, Birmingham Airport, Wellingborough, Northampton, Oxford, etc. all places that are so circuitous at present virtually everyone drives.

I don’t think comparing the number of trains that ran between Cambridge and Sandy when it was closed in 1970 is a fair comparison. the population of Greater Cambridge was about 140,000 then - it’s now 314,000 and with 50,000 additional homes planned in the next 18 years. In 1970, Cambridge station had fewer than 1.5m passengers a year - in 2019, the year before the pandemic that had risen to nearly 13m, and is forecast to be back up to 10m plus this year. The new line would also link all the mainlines more effectively - the previous incarnation for example included a stop at Bedford St John’s involving a 20 minute walk to Bedford Midland - whereas this scheme involves simple cross platform connection. Furthermore since 1970, huge employment hubs have developed or are developing around Cambridge North (Science Park, NE Cambridge redevelopment, Innovation Park, and Business Park, CRC college), Cambridge (Central), CB1 development with Amazon, Google, Apple, Deloitte etc next door), and the new 4 platform Cambridge South currently under construction adjacent to the Biomedical Campus employing 30,000 people and forecast to increase to 60,000 by 2041 and Long Rd college 6th form.

 

[daodao]

@William3000

As of the 2021 United Kingdom census, the population of Cambridge was only 145,700. It is not surrounded by large dormitory urban areas outwith the formal city boundaries, like Manchester, but by green fields and rural villages. Its main station is very poorly sited for commuting, and Cambridge North would not be served directly by East-West rail.

"St Neots, Bedford, Bicester, Coventry, Luton Airport, Luton, Milton Keynes, Birmingham Airport, Wellingborough, Northampton, Oxford. etc." Of these settlements, how many are cities? - just Oxford and Coventry, and the latter already has rail access from Cambridge by changing at Nuneaton. There will be minimal demand for travel from Cambridge to Birmingham Airport, given that Stansted Airport, with a wide range of services, is nearly on Cambridge's doorstep.